Globalization and Information Technology

Globalization and Information Technology present description of the interaction between government and economy whereby the government is seen to extract to a much diminished role (Cerny 1990). The Fordist or corporatist idea of the government as working a managerial role with regard to the national economy, comprising a fairly high degree of direct capitalist ownership and production is long accepted to have passed (Amin 1994). The post-Fordist government that has reinstated it was a product partly of conscious policy, most perceptibly by ‘privatization’, and partly as a consequence of wider structural changes in the world economy.

The enduring process of privatization all through the world was itself a response both to the emerging fiscal crisis of the government throughout the mid seventies and the reconfiguration of the world economy following the collapse of Bretton Woods. The internationalization of production during these years, which numerously regard as the first phase of globalization, saw the first substantial de-linking of systems of finance and manufacturing from traditional locations, mainly the industrial regions of Europe and North America (Amin 2000).

The consequences of these changes have basically been analyzed in relation to emerging space economies at the global and local levels. A generally cited feature of

Need essay sample on "Globalization and Information Technology"? We will write a custom essay sample specifically for you for only $ 13.90/page

the extremely mobile capital of the emerging global economy is its capability to circumvent the national level together. Even as the most marked expressions of this are found in those parts of the government selected (by the government itself) as ‘offshore’, this is also true of the rest of the national economy.

A substantial literature has developed to explore the scopes of the relations between global capital and local places, which tends to assume that the institutions of the national economy are completely circumvented. In the new ‘economy of flows’ or the ‘economies of signs and space’ what matters is the ‘global’ (Robertson 1995). National economic policies have become geared toward helping internal competition between diverse industrial regions for investment.

Competition is provoked by a combination of spatial and fiscal policies such as regional development agencies, ‘pre-competitive’ infra structural improvements, tax holidays and all way of financial ‘sweeteners’. As a result, transnational capital is seen to discuss directly with regional authorities—over the terms and conditions of their investment, including labor conditions, levels of service condition and infrastructure as much if not more than they do with national government.

It is as though local and regional economies have ceased to be entrenched in a national economic space, but now compete directly with other related places in other governments in a global space. Not astoundingly the centrality of national economy is hidden by this new configuration, not least because; the national economy is not mainly a spatial category. The global and the local as, correspondingly, all-inclusive economic space and production ‘node’ or ‘a growth poles’ are far more persuasive spatial configurations (Amin and Thrift 1994).

The role of the government faced with this new realism is to withdraw and to facilitate private capital to exploit the prospective of the new competition. The ‘hollowing-out’ of the government required in these processes of privatization and globalization/localization is, however, much over government. The presentation of the role of the government as increasingly ‘deregulating’ economic space obscures the extent of re regulation that is taking place (Dodd 1994:90). In numerous ways even that is an over government since the core function of the government with respect to the economy has not actually changed all that much.

Rather than be forced by an external force of globalization across the board, as the cruder versions of that theory lean to claim, the government has created conditions whereby it should remake the normative differentiation drawn between diverse aspects of its ‘national’ economy with deference to the global. The government has not recoiled but has reconfigured the way it applies its rules so that they are no longer national, in the sense of being collectively and evenly applied all through the territory of the government.

The ‘reality’ of the global economy is, as a result, routinely marshaled in defense of the orthodox econocentric elucidations to national social and economic problems (Peck 1998). Conclusion Thus, to compete effectively, business organizations should develop a technology strategy. Moreover, as the concept of the globalization significantly extends this concept to European government; not least by giving it an influential institutional framework, but does not significantly alter its function.

The global economy does, though, stand in a different relation to the government since it is no longer neutral. It is still presented as apolitical, and is consequently still understood to be ‘economic’, but it has also become a normative and, certainly, normalizing, reality. The global economy functions in a different way with regard to the government; whilst movements in the world economy have long inclined economic policy within the government, the global economy presented as some new realism forces changes in national policy as a complete.

This has the further significance, of forcing the government to distinguish between its proper function with regard to the global future and its function with regard to a sub-national, local past. Through the formation of the competition government, the homogeneity of the national economy though assumed in theory is cooperating in practice. The national private economy ceases to be believable as a homogenous unity and becomes a single but distinguished space.

This has, certainly, always been the case, but the mobility of capital and the disintegration of the labor-intensive fordist production systems in the North has grinded the differences between regions of the similar government. As such the contribution of the government with its protective economy has not diminished; rather, its prominence has changed. The private national economy is apprehensive to standardize national economic policy to the realities of the global economy and, even more distantly, to the pressure of the process of globalization.

This in itself does not symbolize as much of a disparity as is often claimed since the global economy is a conservatory of the inveterate concept of the ‘world economy’. Certainly, it is worth recollecting that the notion of a world economy was coeval with that of the national economy and has constantly lent the national economic boundary a dual role. The boundary function both as a territorial delimitation of one government from another, but at the similar time has always operated as a line drawn between the territorial space of the government and the implicit space of the ‘world’.

The world economy, like its global descendant, occupies a space that is variously above and between national economies. It functions as an impartial space that provides a benchmark, arrived at through the aggregation of national economic statistics, to breed world prices. Everything has a world market price against which national prices are estimated.